Was it wrong to drop nuclear bombs on Japan?

Answer 1

I used to live in Japan and I have been to Hiroshima. As horrible as it was I really think the bombs saved lives on both sides. I have met older Japanese who have told me about being trained to repel the invasion with bamboo spears as children. Even after Nagasaki an anti-surrender faction attempted a coup. A blockade might have been an alternative strategy but then a lot of Japanese would have starved to death. Don't forget that there were POWs and civilian internees that were dieing from disease and starvation at the time in Japanese camps. Truman's first responsibilty was to bring the war to it's earliest possible conclusion.

Answer 2

I think it was right... but still wrong in a way, though. It did prevent a lot more casualties from happening through other circumstances by forcing Japan to surrender. They were going to fight to the death and that would've caused a lot more U.S. and Japanese deaths.

At the time we didn't know the real effects it would have. Atomic Bombs were a relatively new thing at the time and no one had used them on a residential area and there was only 1 test done with an A-Bomb only 1 month before the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Over 100,000 people were killed and another 100,000+ injured. Another couple of thousand survivors died in the years following from the radiation they had been exposed to.

We did learn from what happened, though. No other atomic bombs had been used since and the United States now has a last resort policy for the Nuclear Weapons we have and we use them as a defense mechanism, not on the offense.

It achieved it's purpose in providing a quick end to what was going on and saved some lives. A lot of people look past that and just think "oh they just bombed it so they could kill a bunch of people." It's one of those "Does the end justify the means?" things.

Answer 3

Unfortunately I forget where I saw this, but I recently read something from a group of historians who stated that the Germans had for the final months of the Third Reich been transferring their own Atomic research to Japan in order to continue researching the bomb. So, as it was in Germany the year prior, the US was essentially in a race to destroy the Japanese resolve before they acquired the powerful weapon themselves. In this light, along with the other items mentioned by others, it seems entirely justified to have dropped the bombs. By the way, there was respondent who stated that she wished that the US had dropped the bombs on military targets. Clearly she needs to do some reading as both Nagasaki and Hiroshima were SELECTED as potential targets (amongst a couple others) because they were 1.) military divisional headquarters and 2.) limitedly populated.

Answer 4

NO!! If you think about it we didn't really have a choice at the time. We needed to end the war and stop the Japanese. That gave us two choices (a) invade Japan and suffer huge casualities and it would have taken a long time or (b) take drop the bombs. It wasn't an easy decision to make, but it was the right one. they weighed the consequences loss of american troops and civilian casualities from the probability of another attack from the japanese versus the loss of japanese civilians in the dropping of the bomb. We dropped the bomb and not much longer did the war end.

Answer 5

A lot of buildings in japan were made out of paper. America could just have firebombed the city and destroyed it just the same. It would have taken a little longer but the city would be destroyed from fires. It did show Japan what they were dealing with though. Some people believe that we droped the atomic bomb on japan just to sort of "show off" to the Soviet Union. I think it was the right decision though. It saved American and Japanese lives.

Answer 6

Yes. I don't know if you've seen the devestion that was caused by both those bombs being dropped. Remember those bombs were'nt dropped on some military target. They were dropped on a land filled with poor farmers and their families and small villiges. Thousands of people were killed. Men, women and children. There land was so messed up by the blast because of all the radiation.

I feel the u.s. should've taken another route in dealing with the Japanese.

Answer 7

everything's a little too complex to be boiled down to right or wrong. had the u.s. not dropped atomic bombs on japan, it would probably have had to attack the nation with actual human military power, causing many, many deaths on both sides and prolonging the war, which could have meant even more battles in other places.

but in dropping the bombs, many japanese people--including completely innocent civilians--died. and many suffered greatly from the radiation after the bombings.

Answer 8

No...it was 100% the correct decision and the merciful decision. If the bomb was not used, military planners estimated that it would cost over 1 million allied soldiers and over 10 million Japanese live to subdue Japan. Using the bomb saved an estimated 11 million lives on both side....mostly on the Japanese side.

Answer 9

They were not nuclear they were atomic bombs, not that it matters, the Japanese were very close to surrendering , I think we could have beat them without the bombs they did'nt stand a chance as it was to win a war with the U.S. just like today , if we really went all out no one would stand a chance.

Answer 10

While a case could be made for the first atomic bomb, not for the second bomb. One question, if Germany was still at war, would we have dropped a bomb on Berlin?